Sunday, November 09, 2008

Somewhere over the Rainbow Lies the Land of the Khmer Rouge

When I look at the world and all of the injustices that need to be adjusted, the lack of ‘One hundred percent authentic!’, ‘accept no substitutes!’ universal gay marriage isn’t what immediately comes to mind.

I’ve gotten no small measure of amusement from Ms’s Etheridge and DeGeneres and company bewailing their oppressed state. Etheridge isn’t going to pay her taxes, or so she says. Of course, that’s about as likely as Alex Baldwin relocating to Europe or the AMA/Pharmaceutical combine promoting good health instead of working to destroy it to increase business.

Along with Zionism, I consider political correctness to be one of the most pernicious viruses on the planet. I shouldn’t have to point out that the places where political correctness most flourished was in revolutionary France, in Red China and among the Khmer Rouge. Political Correctness is cultural fascism. Fascism doesn’t have just one set of clothes. It is as likely to show up in a school room as it is at a family dinner table.

I’ve known a lot of gay people in my life and I never have yet met one who wanted to get married. It sort of destroys the bohemian aspect of the thing. Like with so many movements that want to legitimize their idea of what’s real, as soon as money gets involved you’ve got the scientific and academic community wondering if their new book tour on the gay gene is going to result in a call from Mr., Nobel Prize or one of his siblings.

PETA is another example of this sort of thing. The basic idea is a good one. I’ve no argument with it. I love animals and it breaks my heart to see how they are treated but... you add money, a public relations firm and sympathetic appeal and some more money and the next thing you know the anti-smoking people are in on it and then there’s a law that says you can’t smoke in your house because it’s bad for your dog.

Then there are the Vegans who say that eating honey is stealing from the bees and that cow’s milk is stealing from the calves. There are people who want to marry their pets and then there’s NAMBLA which says that, “eight is too late.” You’ve got voodoo gurus who have sex with their followers and then sue people who point out inconsistencies in their teachings. You’ve got Scientology and K-Mart Kabala who indenture and brain wash people and then hire lawyers to go after the people who point it out.

I’m guessing that gay people in general have got it a great deal better than the Native Americans do. You hear all kinds of arguments about benefits and tax situations where gays are discriminated against because they don’t have the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples have. The bottom line is that that is bullshit... gays like most of the rest of the well-funded political correctness movements are more than equal. The same goes for the public placement of all the menorahs and other Hebrew symbols when measured against the suppression of Christian symbology and the centuries old names of the celebrations of Christianity. The same goes for the rights of witches and pagans and no doubt werewolves as well.

The fact of the matter is that the collective will of the people should prevail over the special interests of well funded minority interests. Unfortunately, much of the time, that has not been the case lately.

It should be no problem for bars and restaurants to have closed off smoking sections but that is not enough for the anti-smoking fascists. They don’t want a reasonable solution. They want their solution and every success serves to push their agenda forward to ever more and more absurd demands.

It’s not just the gay marriage thing that sets off ‘the people’ and causes backlash and protest. It’s all the other things having to do with what kindergarten and primary school children are taught and what points of view are forced upon impressionable minds before they have any chance of getting to a place where they can make up their own. If you want to see political correctness taken to the height of absurdity you have only to look at what is going on in England which also has the highest concentration of spy cameras on the planet. There’s a connection here and you shouldn’t need me to point it out. You also shouldn’t need me to point out that these spy cameras have had very little effect on the crimes they are supposed to prevent.

I don’t have the time and space here to list the incredible amount of demands and the incredible amount of insidious activities that ‘certain members’ of the gay community are up to. It’s not just gay marriage and it’s not just about equal rights. It’s about more than equal and privileged status. It’s about the attempt to supplant and replace the thing it contends against. Take the time and trouble to google some of the things going on in academic and scientific circles if you don’t mind having the shit scared out of you.

The thing is that one thing leads to another. One freedom gained leads to another freedom desired. Then there’s the hypocrisy of it all. Alcohol kills more people and destroys more lives than tobacco ever will but alcohol is cool. Marijuana is illegal because it makes you think. Alcohol is legal because it makes you stupid.

The gay movement, like so many movements eventually comes up against the limit of what the majority of the community will accept. That’s just how it is. The majority of the people don’t want certain aspects of the gay agenda legitimized although they are perfectly fine with many aspects which operate unhindered as this is being written. If gay marriage were legalized it would immediately be forgotten and it would be onward to the next demand. That’s just how it is.

The truth is that the world is insane. Sometimes it’s a great deal more nuts than at other times. Insanity seems to be the most epidemic in the times when materialism is most prevalent. Behind the scenes are thousands of professionals’ hotwiring realities to make them look like what they are not. Then, in come the lawyers and lobbyists who couldn’t care less about the subject at hand but only about the paycheck at the end of the road.

This is why humanity fascinates me. I can sit and watch it go by for hours and hours. They’re like millions of dogs chasing their tails. They get some idea in their mind that has to do with something they want and they can rationalize anything in the pursuit of it. Nobody understands why no one understands them. No one understands why everyone is only interested in themselves just like they are. No one gets why it’s not okay for them to push their way through a crowd of people pushing their way through a crowd toward a fly infested latrine trench where they can get all giddy about the bouquet of their more memorable contributions, now aging beautifully before them.

I don’t really care one way or the other about gay marriage. It’s just not important. I’m not interested in what Vegans think about bees or the fact that non-smokers think there might be a people who live beneath the Earth’s surfaces who are smoking and who shouldn’t be. I’m going to do what I want to do anyway and I’ll go right on doing it because I’m not doing it in your face. I’m not standing on a street corner with a couple of lines of Ketamine and a microphone demanding that you recognize my right to do it. There’s a point there.

The constant shrill insistence on public recognition and compliance with your petulant and childish dress up games in your imaginary world of appearances sooner or later meets up with an archetypal parent force. It might be society and it might be the law. Freedom isn’t license and you could spend a good long time looking for someone who could explain to you what freedom really is instead of explaining to you that freedom is just another way of saying, “get the fuck out of my way.”

Visible and The Critical List: Not Politically Correct by Les Visible and The Critical List♫ Big God and Mr. Fate ♫
'Big God and Mr. Fate' is track no. 3 of 12 on Visible and The Critical List's 1992 album
'Not Politically Correct'

About this song (pops up)

Not Politically Correct by Les Visible and The Critical List

61 comments:

kikz said...

:D


love
k*

Robert said...

Again... Well said, Les!

Anonymous said...

re: " ...dogs chasing their tails...": I once read a quote about sex which likened it to "...mechanical dogs chasing live rabbits..."; seems much the same. Hang in there Les.

Anonymous said...

I was reluctant to come and read this Les.
Then I thought, wait, this is an LV essay!
So, I've read what you’ve written and you haven't disappointed.
Oh me of little faith.
Tony

Anonymous said...

This is not very thoughtful.

You're looking at it backwards. If it's not such a big deal, why did so many people go to the trouble to organize to BAN gay marriage?

In culures like the ones you refer to, homosexuals are almost always among the first ones persecuted.

"Political correctness" is a meaningless phrase that can be used by any side against another.You can do better.

Justin_n_IL said...

All I can say is "Well said".

Anonymous said...

The way it is, Les

Tread lightlty now...

Anonymous said...

One of those “where do I start “ things again.

Just more Divide and Conquer stuff to ponder, or not.

I can’t smoke in a bar or restaurant because the choice to decide about that lay not in the hands of the owner of the establishment, but in the hands of the government. Let’s put the monkeys on display outside of places puffing on their smokes so that non-smokers can feel superior.

I can carry a gun but I have to get a permit first and then they will tell me where and when I can carry it. Never anywhere near where they might be….terrorism you know.

You can have free speech, but it better be in your basement where no one else can listen. If you offend someone with your speech, you are going to jail.
If I am offended that someone is offended by what I say, do I have any standing?

If you attend a rally, you will be held in a barbed wire enclosure miles from where what you are protesting is taking place, and you better have a permit issued by those who don’t want you to speak.

I think it’s funny that in order to get married, you get permission from the government and god. Jumbo Shrimp anyone?

Immunizations are mandatory for your children unless you can prove that you have a religious exemption. What about a common sense objection?

Whatever happened to “Involuntary Servitude” when it comes to the military? Is it just one of those constitutional bumps in the road that gets swept under the rug in favor of fodder?

The new one is going to be voluntary/mandatory servitude in some kind of Americorp/WPA thing. First get rid of the jobs and then you’re home free.
Cheese anyone?

Your neighborhood block watch is going to take on a whole new meaning

So much new news about the upcoming mayhem around the world, it’s almost as guaranteed as the “October Surprise”…or was it January…or July….or……

How come any news of Bush taking over the world has completely vanished…

Damn, can’t tell the players without a program any more

Jj

Anonymous said...

anonymous I don't think you got his point. It isn't about gay people. That is only a touchstone and there's no criticism of gay people per se there. He's talking about sections within movements where the movement might be good to begin with but drives far past where it was supposed to go. Think of the Republican party and neo-cons and you will get it I hope.

Sarah

Visible said...

There is a new piece asking Should the Japanese Apologize for Pearl Harbor?

It's a bit of a flashback but it just goes to show what sort of venal troglodytes infest politics and American politics especially because, after all, America has Hollywood too.

Anonymous said...

I saw my first Gay Pride parade in Austin, Texas. I'd lived there a few years...held hands with my boyfriend walking down the street, kept my more carnal activities to private spaces. I never once witnessed or experienced a "hate crime". Well, not against homosexuals. Definitely against blacks, Muslims, Asians...

To all the prissy homos out there: as long as there are Americans who have nowhere else to eat but trash cans, as long as there are Americans who have no other place to die of age and disease but emergency rooms...you have no business playing Barbie and Barbie or Ken and Ken.

Basic necessities trump your tax breaks and shiny marriage licenses.

I am a homosexual, but I find it ridiculous that a so-called "minority" seek legislation to guarantee equality, rather than showing equality and equal value by exemplifying the characteristics which best fit and enhance our society and our species. I'll leave it up to Ms Etheridge to figure it out what those are.

Anonymous said...

I notice that a certain gay political blogger went his entire gay life into his late thirties without marriage until last year, when he was informed that his work visa was about to run out. Then he immediately got gay-married and became a champion for gay-marriage rights.

Hmm, if gay marriage is treated the same as straight marriage, then as his spouse is American, he could stay in this country indefinitely. Hmm.

Anonymous said...

so much fear and hate here... gays getting married ruins the bohemian aspect of things? huh? and because you've known some gay people in life, you speak for all of them now?

and Jj thinks the world is over because he can't smoke in a bar or restaurant? fucking cry baby! jeez! so freedom to you means YOUR right to cause discomfort to everyone else? not to mention the health issues?

and then whines about only being allowed free speech if it's in his basement. uh, hey Jj, you might be all alone in your basement now, but check this out: what you just typed on this blog goes all over the world via the internet. pretty amazing, isn't it? so, get over it: you might be a lonely person in your basement, but YOUR WORDS are now floating around the cosmos. how is that NOT free?

but, after reading the stuff here, I can at least relax in knowing that your crazy opinions will just be lost in a sea of other crazy opinions on crazy, near-sighted blogs like this one. sigh.

Visible said...

oh... you're a sensitive soul aren't you... now you just make sure that your comfy little world doesn't get disturbed while you are making everyone else uncomfortable with your little demands about how everybody else should toe the fucking line. I would say something like, "blow me." but I'm not real sure what the result might be.

piss off.

I get to say that here because it's the rant blog.

Justin_n_IL said...

Kudos Les

notamobster said...

piss off... (feels good to rant).

Anonymous said...

anonymous 6:41 AM
So you've had your spew, feel better?
Where I may agree with your Jj throw up (purely because of my prejudice) go and read Les' article again, then come back with your narrow view comments.
If you're honest something may sink in and you won't be so vitriolic.
Tony

Frostwolf T'Firerose said...

These thoughts are a mite all over the placedue to feelings of chaos inside fearfulness alas.

Several years ago there was a book called "Anti-Gay" written by a bunch of queer folk. One of the contributors wrote in his bio that he "was no longer gay--he can't afford the gym membership." I think you would probably get what that guy was talking about, Les, and maybe a couple of other readers on this site.

I have to admit that before the election, I didn't really focus too much on the CA Prop H8 matter. I'm one of those guys who have no use for the marriage issue per se. While scanning the NY Times Style Section for the same-sex couples is light entertainment in my home, to me the whole kerfuffle is just set up for unreasonable people on every side of the equation to go windigo on whatever side they deem "other."

If we lived in a rationally governed social structure, those charged with enforcing contracts would ONLY focus on the contracts and not all the religious trappings of it.

Religious people want the word marriage? Sure, knock yerse'f out Wtf-ever. Just don't use that as a pretext to shame me or encroach on my soulspace, all right? Focus on the 3 fingers pointing back at you, all ye index-pointers pathetiques. (And let me just add how grateful to all of you I am for showing me what I DON'T want for myself, your scrunched up sexually-frustrated faces being enough testament to pursuing my own path. Kiss-kiss!)

From a purely legal and objective standpoint however, contracts between two people who approach a significant partnership based on mutual affection and companionship need to have impartial enforcement of their agreed-upon terms. In practice this would be great, but even so, from where I see things, whoever has access to the better legal representation usually gets what they want, alas. Gaight, Stray, doesn't make a difference. Yet no one discusses "the French solution" to this issue, I guess because it's sexier to go zero-sum. Guh buh!

Although my own obserations tend to go toward the practical r/t the hyperbolic, I've got to say the passage of the CA one felt like a sucker punch to the kidneys. My reaction goes back to violence in my past though, resulting from the vEmpire sacral-authority complex and the psychopaths therein installed. More to discharge there than I had thought. When I observe many gay rights organizations, I see the truth in P.K. Dick's observation that to fight the Empire you become the Empire. I have seen tapeworm politics in myself too. I'm not exempt.

In an odd way, I'm grateful to the passage of this testament to kneejerk reflexive (get ready for a [sic]!) "hate-'teh'-other." I'm grateful because it shined a light on something that has been festering inside of me for a long while, even though "I thought I was DONE with this." Terror can rear it's gorgon-Mormon head any time, and the need for countermagic to combat all the various flavors of Abrahamic death-magic come to the fore.

I didn't cause it, I can't cure it, I can't control it, as we say in Al-Anon about whatever addicts we end up having to deal with. I am provided with a moment for surrender. That's where I need to go.

Just one last thing: It's sort of a pet peeve of mine, along the lines of when people write "breath" when they mean "breathe": While I'm impressed that there hasn't been any "As a [fill-in-the-blank] I wish to ...", I do hate it when someone says "There are people more oppressed than you." All of us are afraid of other people. And we all have times when we've been the object of someone's thoughtless vituperations because of something entirely unrelated that happened in their lives.

I see that a lot of people in Ruralia are poor, and that they've been abused by people with whom hey've enStockholmed themselves adoringly. Joe Bageant has some respectful insights into these folks, because he's one of them. And I come from stock like that myself. My grand-dad was the town drunk in his po-dunk village in central North Dakota. I understand a little why someone can put all their eggs into the anti-gay basket, or the anti-POC basket, etc.

But to do so blinds a person to some simple things, like ironically it's gay men specifically who are attempting to keep grandpa's and great-grandma's traditions alive in Small-Town USA. ("A Passion to Preserve" by Will Fellows provides first-person anecodotes of this trend.)

The thing that I feel so so sad about is how one's simple longing for "Big Eden" (q.v. the film) gets lost in all this mishagoss. I so long for Home. I moved out of NYC 3 years ago for that reason. Prop 8 broke something inside me, and I guess it needed to be broken. Still, I feel sad that some people choose to deny themselves the luxury of my presence, as Z.N. Hurston would say when confronted by others' thoughtless reactions toward her dark skin.

I didn't cause it. I can't cure it. I can't control it. Let go. Let Sugma'ad.

Anonymous said...

i'm a man, and i fall in love with men, and i think about men when i masturbate, and that life situation is the universe giving me a lifetime exemption from having my life be all about marriage, children, and family . . . and giving me the responsibility and the choice of saying what my life IS about. BTW, it looks to me like every person has that same choice of saying what their life is about, just like i have, only the materials for making that choice show up differently in people's different life circumstances.

The gay people I am aware of who choose to officially get married are doing something that in the context of how they live THEIR lives, is a very natural, adult thing for them to be doing. Unlike many marriages that start out sort of by default, IMO a big percentage of the gay people who choose to officially marry are doing it deliberately and creatively. (That even has me questioning my own lifetime appreciation of being "exempt" from marriage.)

As long as the govenment licenses some (i.e. straight people's) marriages and confers legal benefits on them, it is unfair to deny those same benefits to gay people who also wish to enjoy them, when the the whole reason for the denial is a primitive religious prejudice: namely, the idea that (as 'Leviticus' does appear to say, at least on the face of it) people like me must be put to death because we are disgusting to God. That's why i voted against Proposition 8 (the California anti-gay-marriage amendment).

In the bigger picture, licensing and/or regulating people's marriages whether gay or straight is something the government has no real beneficial purpose for and therefore should be prohibited from doing in the first place.

Today on WRH a reader wrote: "The human anus is for the excretion of waste matter from the digestion of food. Why would anyone argue with that?"

And MR answered, "So is the penis, and that is also used for sex. Why would anyone argue with that? Point is, if you don't like gay sex DON'T DO IT. The gays are not trying to force you to live life their way. Kindly return the courtesy."

i couldn't have said that better.

The only thing to add is that if anyone thinks the gay "movement" has been co-opted and made into a "wedge issue" for political manipulation, i agree with you. There was ('70s) a REAL, valid, and potent-in-both-senses-of-the-word movement centered on gay freedom, as a subspecies of generic human freedom, expressed through the medium of individual people "coming out," i.e., voluntarily being real with other people, about their own inner reality.

IMO that movement was in fact infiltrated by actual COINTELPRO types and sucessfully "re-branded," so that it's now no longer about freedom, but about "Gay Rights" and "Gay Pride." When that happened i stopped going to the parades.

And to the earlier poster who said, "As long as there are Americans who have nowhere else to eat but trash cans, as long as there are Americans who have no other place to die of age and disease but emergency rooms...you have no business playing Barbie and Barbie or Ken and Ken."

As long as those conditions exist, what business do straight people have playing "Mr. and Mrs."??

LOL! i swear this is true, the "Word Verification" code at that i am going to use to post this comment is [drum roll . . .]

anisert

! ! !

ellis

Visible said...

I knew that doing this this way was going to bring out some interesting things and it did.

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Gosh, I feel so violated and stupid. All i can see that's left for me is to move to Australia and suck dicks.

Jj

marti said...

wonderful,Les.
fearless, you have walked into the wasp's nest.

who is spending his/her intellectiual treasure, participating in the "Gay Pride Parade" ?
who will spent life given time for discussions on
" the freedom to fuck"?
why one is "proud to be gay" and another is not so proud using vagina for the same reason?

WHO WE ARE, THE SEXUALLY OBSESSED DOGS?
WHERE WE ARE?... WHAT TIME IS IT?

And - Qvo Vadis?

Anonymous said...

marti, you remind me of General Jack Ripper afraid his "precious bodily fluids" will get polluted, only you're on about your precious 'intellectual treasure'.

lol

when i'm up before the reincarnation board trying to explain my underachiever life i will be able to say, "i did get my brains fucked out by some excellent fuckers though not as often as i would have liked," and i believe that's going to count for something.

And freedom to fuck? If you don't realize how valuable that can be it's probably because (a) yours has never been put in question by the powers that be (yet), and (b) you don't know what a life-changing fuck is like (yet).

i'm ready to be free regarding everything, and that specifically includes sex, and that specifically includes fucking.

Jj, why do you think you would have to move to Australia??

ellis

Anonymous said...

ellis: I could probably make a up a comment or two about "going down under" but I won't-lol-it's just a reply to Tony who insists on writing in 10 words or less his disagreement with anything I write.
The point that I was trying to make--among many--was that it is put on us that we have to get permission from the government and god to do anything, at least according to them--can you think of two more divisive "entities" .
Personally, I give them both the respect that my common sense dictates--NONE
I'll make up my own guidelines as I go along and change them as need be.
It's all about them dividing and controlling whether by a made up god or a government--
Politician or Priest....you'll end up getting screwed in the end--Pun intended--lol


Cheers,
Jj

Anonymous said...

Well this is a lame thread. Talk about PC. Everyone afraid of offending the AIDS riddled queers or what?

As I'm not constrained by the same essential politeness as Les, let me start by saying "Get your filthy perversions out of my face, and don't even think of pulling your shit in public around me!"

Anyone whose identity is their sexual drive is a fucking loser, period, and I don't care if you're a pox-ridden nymphomaniac teenage slut or some dirty old man jacking off to videos of three year old children. You're a fucking loser.

Dig this: Part of the energy field of Nature on Terra is reproduction. The oceans are full of fish and oyster sperm. The air is full of pollen and spores. Reproduction is going on all of the time all over the planet. You have the same drive because you are in an animal body controlled by hormones, period. Take the hormones away and an animal loses all interest in sex. Humans, having a more complex brain, have the ability to turn insane and fixate their sexuality in forms of mental aberration sans natural hormonal drives. They can be so messed up that they get a sexual thrill out of _______, ______, ________, or even ________. Fill in the blanks yourself, you know what yours are if you have them.

So what's the difference between two scabrous mangy dogs getting stuck together while fucking in the alley and queer "male" homos going to a bath house and taking fists and dicks up the ass from thirty complete strangers in a night? The dogs are not demonstrably insane, they are doing a natural and normal thing, reacting to natural hormonal drives.

Don't tell me about the "gay life style". AIDS isn't and never was an infectious disease and has nothing to do with the so-called HIV virus; if you think it does you are as ignorant as those who think Arab terrorists brought down the WTC. AIDS is self-inflicted; the results of abusing the immune system with massive amounts of powerful drugs and assaulting it with foreign proteins, as in the type you get from taking fists and dicks up your torn and bleeding ass. Or shooting smack with other lowlifes from a dirty needle. That's your identity? That's your pride? What a fucking loser.

But that's just the sick and insane part, not the evil part. The evil part is that the queers work as a tribe, just like the Jews do. And many of the fundie Christians, I might add. Not all are out there actively doing evil in society, but when one of them gets caught or the heat is on, they all group together in a defensive mass and protect those of their chosen group, protecting those who should rightfully be outcast and banished from any decent society or punished severely.

I really, truly don't give a rat's ass what sort of sick and perverted shit people decide to waste their lives on, as long as it doesn't affect me, or the innocents who don't have a choice. And as long as they wash their hands. That's apparently asking too much.

At least sane people don't brag about their most degraded aspects and behaviors. We don't have Junkie Pride Week, or Pederast Catholic Priest Pride Week, or Teenage Slut Pride parades. Or Those Who Play With Their Own Shit Pride parades.

Tell you what, this writer has been around and seen it. Those who know, who really know what it's all about, are more vehemently against your "Equal Rights" shit than the ignorant Bible thumpers. The worst of you, the ones you band together to protect, deserve no protection in any decent society. Get out of my face with your filthy garbage.

The focus of your life, your highest achievement in the human instrument, is getting fucked really good? I am not impressed, and no decent and sane person could be.

Here's something we can all be grateful for: queers don't reproduce. I vote a Darwin Award in the shape of a gold electroplated giant dick.

m_astera

Anonymous said...

m_astera, ahh..... well said and I agree, Les was more polite.
Tony

Anonymous said...

wow, m_astera,
no room for individuals in this rant. Let's just throw all gays into the same basket and light it on fire....kind of a preemptive strike...maybe a little torture. I get the in the face thing, I don't care for that either, the same way I don't care for christian fundamentalists in my face.

Just a thought, but maybe you could buy a working light bulb for the bedside table and live a little.
It's OK to open your eyes too...maybe take the sheet off of the mirror in the bathroom, or scrape the black paint off of it..
whatever.
Might be an idea to switch to decaf and add a bit of fiber in your diet too.
You can also take solace in the fact that Tony agrees with you.

Yes, I did see the "disclaimer" about you only being disgusted with just those who are in your face or "flamers" (my words) but come on, you're not fooling anyone--
That was pure hate for individuals you have made into an all encompassing group.

My wife and I don't want to have any more kids so, according to you...no more sex?

After ALL jews, and homosexuals, who's next? Let's get rid of all the people who don't think like you do and the world will be a rosy place to be--according to you, and maybe Tony..then again, maybe you don't like ALL Australians either...
And please spare me your esoteric-enlightened bullshit.
The person who wrote this is very angry and empty.

Jj

Anonymous said...

I've got a list Jj
and going down it...
ummm...
arr...
well...
You're not on it
Where's my pencil, I hope it has lead in it!!
Tony

Anonymous said...

i just got back here and read the comments since my last, and will post one more time as soon as there's time to type.

ellis

nobody said...

Geez, talk about 'Rosie, why are you posting on smokingmirrors?'. Okay sure, this the Petri Dish, but whatever...

m_astera said...

Jj and Nobody and anyone else interested-

Perhaps you are missing the point of what I wrote. Homosexuality has been "sold" to the masses much as the "holocaust" (Jews as eternal victims) and feminism (women as eternal victims)have been sold. I'm not much of a fan of the victim stance, and I see no advantage coming to our society from this deliberate propaganda. It has made all of these ideas immune from criticism, and I see little or no advantage to society accruing from that.

I am not in solidarity with anyone simply because they are of my own race, gender, religion, profession, or sexual orientation. I do not support the actions of all people of German/Irish descent, nor the actions of all craftsmen, musicians, agronomists or heterosexuals simply because I happen to belong to those groups.

The sort of decadent perversion that I briefly and lightly described in my comment is not OK in my view. It gets much more disgusting and I could have been far more graphic. I touched on enough to make the point that these actions degrade all of our society and humanity in general and they are not an acceptable "lifestyle" to be promoted as "diversity".

Perhaps you are not aware that the promotion of acceptance of these things is part of a deliberate plan to destroy the foundations of our culture worldwide. If you haven't realized that yet, you could start by doing a search for the Tavistock Institute, the Fabian Society, and the Protocols.

I no more hate or despise all homosexuals than I do all farmers simply because some farmers rape and poison their land. I do not, however, see those farmers who carefully steward their land joining in solidarity with the land rapers simply because they are all farmers. If individual homosexuals desire respect and acceptance, they can earn it by acting as valuable and contributing members of society, and not defending and promoting decadent perversions that break down the moral fabric of our communities.

The family, consisting of a man and a woman who have taken a vow of love and commitment to each other, is the basic unit of our society worldwide. Together they provide a stable environment in which children can safely be raised to adulthood, a period of at least fourteen or sixteen years. Part of that commitment is a vow of faithfulness or sexual chastity, the objective value of which is to prevent bringing disease and emotional entanglements into the family that would threaten the survival chances of the children, or if not their survival, their emotional and mental well-being.

The State, as an agent of those who would enslave us all, has worked toward the destruction of the family at least since the time of the French Revolution. One of the main thrusts of this has been the rejection of moral judgment, in effect claiming that all actions with the possible exception of theft, rape, and murder are morally equal (theft, rape, and murder are only allowed if sanctioned by the State). I am convinced that the family and community are the true base of stability and progress for humankind. I observe that actions that have been condemned ethically and morally throughout history have a logical basis for their condemnation and I reject any notion that predatory homosexuals, pederasts, or immoral sluts of either gender are of any benefit to society. I do not wish to take my children or grandchildren to the park for a family picnic while the queers are giving strangers blowjobs or sluts of either gender are fucking randomly in the bushes.

As for Jj's comment about sex only for reproduction, I think you must have me confused with someone else.

Enlightenment comes in many forms and is a journey, not a destination. Thirty years ago I was ignorant enough and mis-educated enough to believe that traditional mores and ethics could safely be thrown in the dustbin of history. I'm a little wiser these days.

Visible said...

For the most part this is what Lao Tzu says too.

Anonymous said...

i don't recall reading one word about queers (by any terminology) in Lao Tzu.

m_astera, are you married, and do you have children?

ellis

Anonymous said...

Also, m_astera, how old are you?

And FYI i've never been married and have no children, and i'm 58.

ellis

Visible said...

Ellis;

You are my friend and I respect and love you and I mean that. I don't have to say this. I say it because it is true. When I mentioned Lao Tzu it was specific to a point and is not meant to extend beyond it. It had only to do with the family being central to civilization. If need be I will quote to you from the 81 sutras that I memorized by heart just as I did the Rubiyat.

It does not treat with this particular argument only that POV.

I have no dog in this fight. I just dislike those who sidetrack moments for profit and they are in every movement. Please forgive me if my explanation falls short. You mean a great deal to me and I just need to say that.

Anonymous said...

"When I mentioned Lao Tzu it was specific to a point and is not meant to extend beyond it. It had only to do with the family being central to civilization."

Thank you for clarifying. That's very beautiful. Reading just that sentence i really get the possibility of healthy families at the center, producing healthy people and thereby generating a whole healthy civilization. And also the possibility that there may have been times in the distant past when humanity has been like that, and it could be again.

i'm just contemplating that before continuing.

Now here's an observation that's interesting to me and maybe to you . . . maybe even to any m_asteras and tonys who will read this . . .

A man and a man, or a woman and a woman, don't reproduce. And yet, generation after generation of human families keep right on producing a certain percentage of little boys who like to read and sew and cook and who fall in love with men, and little girls who like to climb trees and play football and fix cars and who fall in love with women.

What if anything does this say to you about nature's real intentions regarding homosexuality?

i put the same question again, only this time in light of the homosexual affection, pairing, and loyalty that sometimes occur in a widespread minority of birds and mammals. (i witnessed a horse that acted like he had a crush on his 'buddy.' i read about male penguins that form pairs and incubate eggs just like the male-female pairs.)

Does any of that suggest anything about the 'status', or possible value, of homosexuality among the phenomena of nature?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

now i put those dashes there as a sort of 'cordon sanitaire' -- on this side of which i will at least start to address m_astera's post.

There's a lot to say, but where to start, and will it do any good.

i won't try to change anybody's opinion, not because i think anyone here or anywhere for that matter is irrecoverable, but when i try to alter someone's opinion it seems i always end up lying and/or pretending.

First of all i do request an answer to my earlier question only i will expand it a little. In fact there are several questions here.

m_astera, are you married now, and have you been married, and if so how many times, and how many children have you personally contributed to nature's righteous fecundity . . . and, if you have children, are any of them homosexual? And if your answer to that last part is "no," my next question is, How dow you know that? And if you actually don't have any homosexual children, how would you raise them if you did have them, and how do you think parents who give birth to the huge number of homosexual babies should raise them? And if you actually do have homosexual children, how ARE you raising them?

One last question, and please get that this is 100% nonsarcastic and i am sincerely curious to read your considered answer . . . right near the beginning of your post you said, "Get your filthy perversions out of my face, and don't even think of pulling your shit in public around me!" What would you think of a father who said that to his homosexual son or daughter?

i'll pause here for a response.

ellis

m_astera said...

Well, Ellis, you definitely didn't get my post. Either of them.

Let me begin by saying that I love to read, and sew, and cook and have since I was a young child. I have also done embroidery and am quite good at macrame. I have made a living in jewelry and as a clothing designer, men's and women's. My true loves in gardening are perennial flowers, especially flashy ones like iris and gladiolus, though I have a sweet spot for roses too. I take thousands of photos, mostly of flowers, and use those photos in commercial design work. I shop at linen stores and cooking boutiques. My "feminine" side is well nurtured.

At the same time I hunt and fish and climb mountains, hike into the wilderness alone, fall trees and make houses from them, build with stone and carve it, and build the occasional hot rod engine for fun. I like noisy industrial production and machines. The masculine is balanced with the feminine without effort; these are just things that interest me.

I've had and still have plenty of "gay" friends and acquaintances, male and female. I've worked with them, been roommates with them, hung out at the bar with them, camped at the beach with them. Like so many do, you seem to think you can pigeonhole me because I wrote what you have been media-programmed to think can only come from an ignorant bigot, much like the ongoing castigation I get from poorly informed liberals because I tell the truth about other things, such as Saint Hugo of Venezuela, or the damage that feminism has done to women and society. Ignorant I'm not, nor am I a bigot. When someone proves me wrong, I learn and change. Doesn't happen that often, mostly I just get ad-hominem attacks.

I guess the question, if it is a question, is exactly what do I mean by "Get your filthy perversions out of my face, and don't even think of pulling your shit in public around me!"

I gave a few examples of filthy perversions. None of my children of either sex would have been allowed such behavior while they were my responsibility; as adults I would simply have nothing more to do with them. That is a choice I reserve in my relationships with everyone.

Homosexuality is being "sold" as normal behavior, actively marketed as "cool" and "stylin'". Need examples? Queer eye and all that? Promoted as diversity. Gotta get the kiddies to think it's acceptable. That is someone's agenda, you know, and it didn't originate in the "gay" community. As I said, I have been around. I have seen a whole lot of the seamy side of the world, the really seamy side, and I've read a lot too.

Homosexuality, as in being sexually attracted to one's same sex, is as you say somewhat common in the animal kingdom, probably around 1%-2%. Why should I have problem with this? I don't. Nor do I have a problem with it in humans. It simply is. What I have a problem with is, as I stated, the propensity of some less-than-sane humans to attach sexual charge to harmful behaviors; harmful to society and to health and to any sort of even rudimentary morality. Is the child sex slave/torture ring that Larry King ran out of Omaha "diversity"? Are the actions I lightly touched on regarding the bath houses "diversity"? Do you see those things as acceptable behavior? Do you think they have any benefit to society?

My other point was that the TGLBWhatever herd actively defends anyone who claims to be one of them, with few exceptions. That herd (deliberate pejorative) may be able to convince the bleeding hearts and the ignorant that they are persecuted victims who live normal lives, boyfriend and boyfriend or wife and wife or whatever. And in some cases that has a certain validity. But it by no means addresses the the sort of immoral filth that I was describing. For some reason the lesbians don't get into that sort of true degradation; the male queers do. I know this stuff, OK? I'm not coming from ignorance.

If one wishes to argue with me that there is no such thing as sexual morality, they might as well tell me that theft and battery and rape are not immoral. Objectively and subjectively they all do harm to individuals and to society.

Are you interested in my personal heterosexual behavior? Would you like me to parade it in front of you? Would you like to take your mother for a walk in the park and see me fucking a bunch of sluts? Do you think it is my place or duty to defend anyone who does that simply because I too am heterosexual?

In Les's essay he mentioned that you don't see him on the street corner with a couple lines of ketamine and a bullhorn berating you to accept his behavior.

Can you possibly get a clue of where I'm coming from? Homosexuality per se does me no harm, but I don't want it in my face, nor do I want explicit heterosexuality in my face unless I choose to seek it out.

And finally, as I mentioned in my original post:

"Anyone whose identity is their sexual drive is a fucking loser, period, and I don't care if you're a pox-ridden nymphomaniac teenage slut or some dirty old man jacking off to videos of three year old children. You're a fucking loser."

That applies to everyone, get it? My sexuality is not and has never been my identity nor my defining characteristic, not since around age thirteen anyway. Even then my identity wasn't my sexuality or orientation. I'm an adult, a grown man, and I behave as one.

I have skills, talents, and accomplishments. I am well read and get along anywhere. I do my best to make the world a better place and put large amounts of energy and focus into that without pay or much expectation of reward. My sexual orientation and my sex life have less than zero to do with my goals or accomplishments, and frankly I pity anyone who is fifty-eight years old and is still focused on their pee-pee and butthole. I'm less impressed than I am with the scrufulous dogs fucking in the alley, and I am not about to suddenly decide that degrading, unhealthy, and immoral behavior is simply diversity to be embraced in the spirit of multiculturalism. If the things I mentioned describe your "lifestyle" then you are and will remain on my list of undesirables. If they do not I fail to see why you would claim solidarity with those who practice them.

There are, by the way, a number of esoteric vibrational, energetic, and spiritual reasons to avoid such behavior, but if you don't think there's such a thing as basic social morality they would be lost on you.

Anonymous said...

ellis
I also have a view on abortion and promiscuity and capital punishment
However I will never have any demand for hard decisions re these subjects
As for my view on homosexuality; again no hard decisions just my view
Then again I've only been married once and never been with another except my wife and have no desire otherwise. I’m not prone to pregnancy so abortion doesn’t enter my decision making process. And although I would like to execute one of my brothers in law that probably won’t happen either. So I suppose my extreme prejudice is reflected in my lifestyle. This reminds me I also have a view on paedophiles and incest.
Is there a pattern here??

Just read m_’s response; excellent take.

Ellis you must admit you have waved your flag here (in Les’ blogs) a little mate- why is that?? You want our approval?? OK you have mine; knock yourself out- just (please) don’t get in my face with your shenanigans. Isn’t this the intent of Les’ article? Not just re sex but all minority idiosyncrasies.

Tony

Anonymous said...

Detailed response to m_astera and tony to come soon. In the meantime, i posted this preliminary response on the next thread of Petri Dish.

ellis

=============================

m_astera and tony . . .

Thank you both for replying to my comment over on the other thread.

i am going to reply there in detail, and i started doing that but haven't finished it yet. Today i'm busy at work and may not be able to finish this evening either but i am definitely completing that because it's important to me, so . . . watch that space.

For a short response here, m_astera, there is an important piece that i believe you are not seeing, and i had thought you were a person who was determined NOT to see it, and now i see from what you're saying on this thread that you are not that type of person at all, and in fact you are ALREADY starting to see it, because it has to do with discriminating between (as you said) . . .

". . . truths that you have proven to yourself as opposed to truths that you have accepted without proof. It seems to me that it's the truths that we have accepted that divide us and cause ideological conflict. . . . They aren't really truths, simply unproven beliefs that have been accepted, and usually are found in those who haven't seriously studied or questioned them."

One of those indoctrinated truths, accepted without testing -- namely, that as the pope recently repeated, homosexuality is 'an intrinsic evil' -- is the thing that is squarely in the way here. This is a truth that has been (again quoting from your post) "running through the monkey mind" of western culture for a very long time, making it impossible for people to simply "consider what's fair."

Bullseye diagnosis, doctor.

You said . . .

"I am constantly astonished and left speechless at the sheer absence of awareness, thinking 'Do you realize what you just said (or did)?'"

That is a pretty good description of my first reaction to your post about the AIDS ridden fags, etc. Then, as i thought about it i started thinking, No, the guy IS aware, and he's doing it on purpose! Now, from learning more about you, i see it as being on purpose ONLY in the sense that this topic is one that you are used to feeling right about, and it looks to me like you said what you did in order to re-experience those familiar feelings of 'being right', about this particular topic. But the content of what you said was actually unintentional in that it was an readout of a belief that you (and i, and billions of other people) got indoctrinated with, and that you have not been aware IS actually an indoctrinated belief (because it has felt like something that is just obviously right without even having to be said, or even thought about).

I AM aware of it because i have (as you said) seriously studied and questioned it, and i did that because . . . my karmic situation made it absolutely necessary for survival. Otherwise i probably wouldn't have. And my understanding is, the aspects of my situation that in the past have seemed negative and limiting (difficulty self-expressing, possessing a characteristic that per-the-Bible means i should be killed if i let anyone see it) are indications of how i have BEEN in the past toward other people -- maybe a nazi schoolteacher or Retardant type of person, who was suppressive and really into being that way. So, i don't see any innocent victims in the picture. i would however like to lighten the load that this belief puts on the people it impacts. Paradoxically i think that means i have to recognize and renounce the ways that i have been or am being suppressive to other people.

Thank you m_astera for indicating something i never thought about before, the relation between indoctrinated beliefs and fairness . . . that what we were indoctrinated with, and believe without even realizing we're believing something, keeps us from considering and creating the arrangements that we would prefer to be in effect as 'fair.'

Now i'll put the rest of this back over on the other thread.

Les, thank you for thinking of me as a possible community participant. When i read what you wrote i went out for a walk and thought it over without actually needing to because the answer is already obviously yes! Would i possibly consider living in an olive grove in the boot of Italia? Como no???

ellis

m_astera said...

Well, Ellis, I haven't seen anything showing up here, but I read your comment over at the proposed community thread.

I would submit that I am not the one being obtuse. I have striven for clarity.

Try this take: Some aberrations or differences are degrees on a continuity. Some are categorical. Example: Height is a continuity, weight is a continuity, skin color is a continuity.

Gender is categorical, as is species, genus, mineral or vegetable or animal.

One may be rather fat, but a thing will not be slightly mineral.

I would propose that homosexuality is an example of a syndrome that can be either or both. Some are born homosexual. There are factors in the mother's nutrition having to do with mineral insufficiency that produce homosexuality in animals. (didn't know that, did you?) Likely the same applies to humans, though investigating that would not be PC.

These factors affect the fetal brain, and the resulting homosexuality I would say is categorical.

Much the same could be said of mongolism, and cretinism; they are pretty much categorical. (cretinism is caused by Iodine deficiency in the mother during pregnancy, and yes there are degrees of it, I'm just looking for illustrations)

Homosexuality can also be environmental. Prisons are a good example, as are the victims of pederasts who grow up to be such themselves.

In other words, a person may become homosexual due to environment. This would be the goal of most of the homosexuals I have known--that all others of their gender also be homosexuals. It is somewhat analogous to Christians who would convert everyone to their own brand.

I personally don't like religious missionaries, nor do I appreciate homosexual missionaries who would wish to go into grade schools and recruit. This cannot have any beneficial result for society. And before you start telling me that that's not the agenda, recall please that you are not talking to the gullible or ignorant.

I am, BTW, aware that queers call heterosexuals "breeders" and attempt a certain superiority because they are not contributing to overpopulation. What homosexuals are also doing is ending a very, very long and complicated genetic line. As we see in the world today, the poor, malnourished, and ignorant are breeding freely while the well fed, educated, and prosperous are not. It's doubtful that this will have a beneficial outcome for society either. You may be interested to know that the same non-homosexuals who are promoting homosexuality are also the ones convincing intelligent people not to reproduce. I tend to not have much use for those who promulgate the lies of those bent on the destruction of humanity.

Do you believe the following:

That all humans evolved from ape-like primates that originated in Africa?

That there is only one species of human, and that all races have equal potential IQ?

That homosexuality is categorical rather than environmental?

That men and women have precisely equal potential, and that the only reason we haven't had an equal amount of female inventors, composers, scientists, engineers, architects, mathematicians, and great artists is because women have always been oppressed?

That the traditional role of women in society, to be the homemakers and nurturers, is demeaning to them, and that it is much better to have them working at careers that have been traditionally male while strangers take care of the children?

All of these are radically new ideas in the history of humanity, and all of them have been invented and heavily propagandized by the same group of miscreants bent on the destruction of culture and society. They are also flatly untrue.

Here are more of the lies; see if you can see the pattern: Smart kids don't stay on the farm; they move to the city and get an office job. Intelligent people don't work with their hands, they become doctors or lawyers or corporate executives or government officials.

These all come from the same source that is and has been pushing homosexuality, abortion, and feminism. I had to do a lot of thinking, changing, and growing up when I put that all together. Not many are ready for that.

Anonymous said...

m_astera, i still haven't finished my point-by-point on your "aids ridden fags" opus. Here are short answers to the questions in your most recent post, and everything below the dotted line is you, with my answers (mostly) in CAPS to make them stand out. i’m sorry that makes them harder to read.

ellis

--------------------------------------------------

I would submit that I am not the one being obtuse. I have striven for clarity.

I DON'T THINK EITHER OF US IS BEING 'OBTUSE.' I DO SEE YOU AS OPERATING OUT OF A BELIEF ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY THAT IS TRANSPARENT TO YOU, SO IT'S HARD FOR YOU TO SEE THAT YOU EVEN HAVE IT, ESPECIALLY SINCE IT'S A BELIEF THAT APPEARS TO BE SHARED IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER BY A VERY LARGE PERCENTAGE OF WESTERN PEOPLE. THIS IS THE BELIEF THAT SAME-SEX ATTRACTION, IN ITS VERY NATURE, IS NOT JUST EVIL BUT *EXTRAORDINARILY* SO (SAID TO BE AN 'ABOMINATION’). -- and BTW what does that rarely used word even mean outside of this one micro-context??. Also BTW and FYI i am LOL about this as i am typing. THIS IS A BELIEF THAT PRODUCES *NO* BENEFIT FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE UNCONSCIOUSLY LOOKING AT THE WORLD THROUGH IT. (LIKE ROSE-COLORED GLASSES ONLY THE OPPOSITE . . . THESE WOULD BE SHIT-COLORED GLASSES.) AND THIS BELIEF RESULTS IN MAJOR RESTRICTIONS IN THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE THAT THE BELIEF IS ALLEGEDLY 'ABOUT.'

Try this take: Some aberrations

PERFECT DEMO OF WHAT I AM REFERRING TO. YOU CAN NAIL IT RIGHT THERE BY *FEELING YOUR WAY INTO* (rather than thinking about) WHAT IT WAS IN YOUR INNER WORLD THAT HAD YOU INCLUDE THAT PARTICULAR WORD INSTEAD OF JUST SAYING 'DIFFERENCES'. GO FOR THE *FEEL* OF WHY YOU PICKED THE WORD 'aberrations' AND SEE WHAT'S THERE. IT’LL BE SOMETHING YOU SEEM TO ‘KNOW’ IMPLICITLY AND THAT YOU FEEL ‘RIGHT’ ABOUT, ONLY WHEN YOU LOOK CLOSER YOU SEE THERE’S NO EVIDENCE OF YOUR ‘RIGHTNESS’ APART FROM THAT FEELING OF ‘RIGHTNESS’.

or differences are degrees on a continuity. Some are categorical. Example: Height is a continuity, weight is a continuity, skin color is a continuity. [O.K.]

Gender is categorical, as is species, genus, mineral or vegetable or animal. [O.K.]

One may be rather fat, but a thing will not be slightly mineral. [O.K.]

I would propose that homosexuality is an example of a syndrome

SAME SUGGESTION AS ABOVE, FEEL WHAT IT WAS THAT HAD YOU PICK THIS WORD WHICH MEANS A RELATED GROUP OF *DISEASE CONDITIONS* RATHER THAN A MORE NEUTRAL WORD, LIKE FOR EXAMPLE 'CHARACTERISTIC.'

that can be either or both. Some are born homosexual. There are factors in the mother's nutrition having to do with mineral insufficiency that produce homosexuality in animals. (didn't know that, did you?)

WHAT I HAD READ WAS THAT THE OCCURRENCE OF HOMOSEXUALITY COULD BE RELATED TO HORMONAL FLUCTUATIONS IN THE MOTHER, AND SURELY THE MOTHER'S HORMONE LEVELS COULD WELL BE AFFECTED BY THE MOTHER'S NUTRITION.

Likely the same applies to humans, though investigating that would not be PC.

DON’T WORRY, I'M VERY UN-'PC'.

These factors affect the fetal brain, and the resulting homosexuality I would say is categorical.

YES . . . IF THAT WAS ACTUALLY THE CAUSE. I DO BELIEVE THE CAUSES OF HOMOSEXUALITY AND FOR THAT MATTER HETEROSEXUALITY HAVE ONLY BEEN INVESTIGATED A LITTLE AND ARE STILL LARGELY UNKNOWN.

Much the same could be said of mongolism, and cretinism; they are pretty much categorical. (cretinism is caused by Iodine deficiency in the mother during pregnancy, and yes there are degrees of it, I'm just looking for illustrations)

YOUR (IMPLICIT, MEANING UNSTATED) TRAIN OF THOUGHT APPEARS TO BE . . .

1- HOMOSEXUALITY IS OR MIGHT BE A RESULT OF HORMONAL FLUCTUATIONS IN AN UNBORN CHILD, AFFECTED BY THE MOTHER'S NUTRITION.

2- THE BIRTH DEFECTS OF CRETINISM AND MONGOLOIDISM ARE KNOWN TO BE CAUSED BY THE MOTHER'S IODINE DEFICIENCY.

3- THEREFORE HOMOSEXUALITY IS A BIRTH DEFECT.

ALTHOUGH THIS IS AN ILLOGICAL CONCLUSION, THERE IS A GUIDING AND POWERFUL 'LOGIC' OF SORTS SHAPING THE THINKING HERE . . .

IF A CONVERSATION STARTS INSIDE OF THE UNTESTED, UNEXAMINED, AND MOSTLY *UNNOTICED*, BUT OVERWHELMINGLY ACCEPTED *ASSUMPTION* THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS SOME KIND OF DEFECT OR DEFORMITY AND IS A CATASTROPHE FOR ANY FAMILY THAT GIVES BIRTH TO THAT KIND OF A CHILD, THEN IT'S NO SURPRISE WHEN THAT CONVERSATION TAKES A QUICK TURN INTO THE AREA OF BIRTH DEFECTS . . . ACTUALLY IT'S NOT EVEN A TURN BECAUSE IT WAS ALREADY THERE TO START WITH.

Homosexuality can also be environmental. Prisons are a good example,

I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE NO (LITERALLY ZERO) EXAMPLES OF HETEROSEXUAL MEN WHO CAME OUT OF PRISON, AFTER UNWANTED MALE-MALE SEX EXPERIENCES, WITH THEIR SEXUAL DESIRES SHIFTED AWAY FROM WOMEN, ONTO MEN.

as are the victims of pederasts who grow up to be such themselves.

HERE’S ANOTHER *AMAZING* EXAMPLE OF NON-LOGICAL THINKING WHICH IS NEVERTHELESS GUIDED BY A POWERFUL 'LOGIC' OF ITS OWN . . .

SEPARATING OUT THE PART ABOUT PRISONS, AND JUST QUOTING THE 'PEDERAST' PART OF IT, WHAT YOU JUST SAID IS THIS:

"Homosexuality can also be environmental. [A] good example [is] the victims of pederasts who grow up to be such themselves."

A PEDERAST IS SOMEONE WHO SEXUALLY ABUSES CHILDREN. SO, WHAT THIS STATEMENT ASSERTS IS THAT A SEXUALLY ABUSED CHILD, WHO GROWS UP TO BE A SEXUAL ABUSER OF CHILDREN, IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF HOW HOMOSEXUALITY CAN BE ENVIRONMENTALLY CAUSED.

THAT ASSERTION ALL BY ITSELF IS NON-LOGICAL. HOW DOES THAT EXAMPLE EXEMPLIFY WHAT YOU SAY IT DOES?? (CLUE: IT DOESN'T.)

BUT, AS IN YOUR EARLIER COMMENT ABOUT CRETINISM, THIS TRAIN OF THOUGHT DOES HAVE A FALSE 'LOOK AND FEEL' OF *BEING* LOGICAL BECUASE IT'S TAKING SHAPE INSIDE OF A PRE-EXISTING CONSTELLATION OF UNEXAMINED BELIEFS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY WHICH INCLUDE THESE TWO IDEAS:

"SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN CAUSES THE ABUSED CHILDREN TO BECOME GAY."

AND

"A HOMOSEXUAL IS LIKELY TO BE A PEDERAST."

IF WE START OUT BY ASSUMING THOSE TWO BELIEFS ARE ACTUALLY TRUE, THEN OF COURSE A PEDERASTY VICTIM GROWING UP TO BE A PEDERAST COULD BE A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF HOMOSEXUALITY BEING CAUSED ENVIRONMENTALLY.

BUT WHAT GIVES VALIDITY TO THOSE TWO BELIEFS? NOTHING BUT THEIR INDOCTRINATED PERSISTENCE IN THE MIND OF THE PERSON WHO BELIEVES THEM (I.E., WHO KNOWINGLY OR UNKNOWINGLY CONSIDERS THEM TO BE TRUE).

BASED ON MY LIFE EXPERIENCE AND ALL THE CONVERSATIONS I HAVE HAD WITH PEOPLE, I REGARD BOTH OF THOSE TWO BELIEFS AS BEING FALSE AND CLEARLY SO.

In other words, a person may become homosexual due to environment.

A TOTALLY UNPROVED CONCLUSION.

THE PRISON ARGUMENT FAILS FOR A TOTAL LACK OF ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. THERE'S NOT EVEN ONE EXAMPLE OF A STRAIGHT MAN WHO EVER WENT TO PRISON AND GOT SHIFTED INTO BEING A GAY MAN, EITHER BY TEMPORARY DEPRIVATION OF CONTACT WITH WOMEN, OR BY UNWANTED MALE-MALE SEX WHILE INCARCERATED.

THE PEDERASTY ARGUMENT FAILS BECAUSE (1) AS POINTED OUT EARLIER IT CAN ONLY ‘SUCCEED’ IF ONE IS WILLING TO ASSUME THE VERY THING THE ARGUMENT IS SETTING OUT TO PROVE AND (2) THE TWO ASSUMPTIONS THAT IT HAS TO START OUT BY MAKING, ARE BOTH FALSE (FACTUALLY UNTRUE).

This would be the goal of most of the homosexuals I have known--that all others of their gender also be homosexuals.

[ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ]

THAT'S ME LOL AND STUCK TEMPORARILY WORDLESS WITH REAL AMAZEMENT THAT ANYONE, ESPECIALLY AN INTELLIGENT PERSON, COULD BELIEVE SUCH AN OBVIOUS ABSURDITY, OR THAT THEY COULD ACTUALLY WRITE IT DOWN AND READ IT BACK TO THEMSELVES WITHOUT HAVING A FLASH OF INTUITION THAT WOULD TELL THEM THAT WHAT THEY WROTE IS UTTERLY UNCONNECTED TO FACTUAL REALITY IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER.

It is somewhat analogous to Christians who would convert everyone to their own brand.

IN THE REAL WORLD SEXUAL 'CONVERSION' DOESN'T HAPPEN, IN EITHER DIRECTION.

THERE ARE PARENTS WHO PAY TO HAVE THEIR GAY KIDS IN LONG-TERM RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS (LIKE THE ONE CALLED 'EXODUS') THAT CLAIM TO 'CHANGE' GAY BOYS INTO STRAIGHT MEN. THE INMATES LIVE IN A BOOT-CAMP ENVIRONMENT. SOME OF THE PEOPLE IN THOSE PROGRAMS CHANGE THEIR SEXUAL BEHAVIOR. HOWEVER, I AM NOW ASSERTING TO YOU THAT THERE ARE *NO KNOWN EXAMPLES* OF A PERSON WHO ACTUALLY SHIFTED THE NATURE OF THEIR OWN INNER SEXUAL DESIRES FROM GAY TO STRAIGHT IN ONE OF THOSE PROGRAMS.

DO YOU THINK 'CONVERSION' IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION (STRAIGHT TO GAY) IS EASIER? JESUS BOOT CAMPS WITH PAID STAFFS INFLICTING THE FEAR OF HELL HAVE NEVER YET STRAIGHTENED OUT EVEN ONE HOMOSEXUAL, YET YOU THINK A STRAIGHT PERSON COULD SUDDENLY FIND HIMSELF TRANSFORMED INTO A FAG BECAUSE HE WAS FORCED TO READ “HEATHER HAS TWO MOMMIES” AT AN IMPRESSIONABLE AGE?

IF YOU SEE THE ABSURDITY OF THIS, THEN LET’S LAUGH HARD ABOUT IT AND DO SOMETHING THAT’S MORE FUN THAN THIS. IF YOU DON’T SEE IT . . . IF YOU REALLY DON’T . . .

. . . THEN MAYBE IT’S LIKE SOMEONE SUGGESTED TO ME ONCE, THAT TO GET SOMETHING NEW, A PERSON HAS TO HEAR ABOUT IT SEVEN TIMES, AND FOR YOU THIS ISN’T TIME #7 YET, BUT YOU COULD BE CLOSE.

I personally don't like religious missionaries, nor do I appreciate homosexual missionaries who would wish to go into grade schools and recruit. This cannot have any beneficial result for society. And before you start telling me that that's not the agenda, recall please that you are not talking to the gullible or ignorant.

YES, SCHOOLS ARE USED FOR COVERT ‘SOCIAL ENGINEERING’, AND IMO THAT’S ACTUALLY THEIR MAIN, INTENDED FUNCTION. (SEE JOHN TAYLOR GATTO’S “THE UNDERGROUND HISTORY OF AMERICAN EDUCATION,” ONE OF THE VERY BEST BOOKS ON WHAT’S REALLY HAPPENING IN THE WORLD.)

NOW, ABOUT THE “HOMOSEXUAL MISSIONARIES WHO WOULD WISH TO GO INTO GRADE SCHOOLS AND RECRUIT” . . .

IF YOU REALLY MEAN HOMOSEXUALS WHO WANT TO GO TO GRADE SCHOOLS AND TURN THE CHILDREN INTO HOMOSEXUALS, THEN YOU REMIND ME OF WHEN I WAS A 12- OR 13-YEAR OLD PAPERBOY, AND ONE OF MY CUSTOMERS WAS A MAN ABOUT 60 WHO WARNED ME NOT TO PARK MY BICYCLE NEXT TO THE STORM DRAIN BECAUSE THE GERMS WOULD COME UP AND GET IT. THAT WAS REAL TO HIM.

BUT I MYSELF WOULD, IF INVITED, GO TO A SCHOOL AND PRESENT TO THE STUDENTS AND THE TEACHERS THE SAME VIEWPOINTS THAT I AM PRESENTING TO YOU IN THIS POST.

IF I DID THAT, WOULD YOU CONSIDER THAT AN EXAMPLE OF A HOMOSEXUAL MISSIONARY DOING ‘RECRUITING’??

I am, BTW, aware that queers call heterosexuals "breeders" and attempt a certain superiority because they are not contributing to overpopulation.

(1) IF YOU DON’T WANT TO BE CALLED A BREEDER IS THAT AN EXAMPLE OF A ‘PC’-TYPE OF RESTRICTION ON THE WAY PEOPLE TALK? IF NOT, AND IT’S JUST THAT YOU WOULD PREFER NOT TO BE ATTACKED VERBALLY BY ANYONE, THEN WE’RE IN ALIGNMENT ON THAT, BECAUSE I DON’T LIKE IT EITHER, AND AS I SEE IT, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ‘PC’ OR NOT-‘PC’.

(2) I DIDN’T CALL YOU THAT, AND IT’S NOT A TERM I NORMALLY USE.

What homosexuals are also doing is ending a very, very long and complicated genetic line.

FOR EVERY PERSON WHO PRODUCES NO CHILDREN THERE MUST BE AT LEAST A THOUSAND WHO DO PRODUCE THEM. I DON’T KNOW ABOUT YOU, BUT EVERYWHERE I LOOK THESE DAYS THERE ARE BABY-BUGGIES WITH CHILDREN IN THEM, SO I KNOW THE GENETIC LINE IS QUITE SAFE FROM BEING EXTINGUISHED BY MY PERSONAL NON-CONTRIBUTION.

As we see in the world today, the poor, malnourished, and ignorant are breeding freely while the well fed, educated, and prosperous are not. It's doubtful that this will have a beneficial outcome for society either. You may be interested to know that the same non-homosexuals who are promoting homosexuality are also the ones convincing intelligent people not to reproduce. I tend to not have much use for those who promulgate the lies of those bent on the destruction of humanity.

THAT’S TOO GENERAL TO RESPOND TO. EXCEPT, I WILL SAY, IT’S UNCLEAR TO ME HOW THE THINGS YOU MENTION RELATE TO THE ACTUAL FACT OF MALE-MALE AND FEMALE-FEMALE ATTRACTION. IF IT’S TRUE THAT SAME-SEX ATTRACTION IS BEING POLITICALLY MANIPULATED AND/OR PROMOTED IN DEVIOUS WAYS, AS I AGREE IT IS, THAT PROVES NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THE PHONOMENON ITSELF.

Do you believe the following:

That all humans evolved from ape-like primates that originated in Africa? [NO.]

That there is only one species of human, and that all races have equal potential IQ? [I SORT OF DOUBT THE FIRST PART IS TRUE, BUT ALSO THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF A ‘SPECIES’, LIKE MANY STANDARD SCIENTIFIC CONCEPTS, APPEARS CURIOUSLY QUESTIONABLE TO ME. THAT ALSO APPLIES TO ‘IQ’. I DON’T REALLY KNOW TO WHAT EXTENT THE CONCEPT OF ‘IQ’ MAY OR MAY NOT BE A VALID CONCEPT.]

That homosexuality is categorical rather than environmental? [I SEE ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE. AND, YOU DID COMPLETELY FAIL IN YOUR ATTEMPT TO PROVE THAT IT’S ENVIRONMENTAL . . . SEE ABOVE.]

That men and women have precisely equal potential, and that the only reason we haven't had an equal amount of female inventors, composers, scientists, engineers, architects, mathematicians, and great artists is because women have always been oppressed? [NO.]

That the traditional role of women in society, to be the homemakers and nurturers, is demeaning to them, and that it is much better to have them working at careers that have been traditionally male while strangers take care of the children? [NO.]

All of these are radically new ideas in the history of humanity, and all of them have been invented and heavily propagandized by the same group of miscreants bent on the destruction of culture and society. .

They are also flatly untrue

I DO THINK A RADICALLY NEW IDEA OF ANY KIND WOULD CERTAINLY BE HORRIBLE! : ) BUT I AGREE WITH YOU HERE PROBABLY MORE THAN YOU MAY THINK.

Here are more of the lies; see if you can see the pattern: Smart kids don't stay on the farm; they move to the city and get an office job.

I’M VERY SAD THAT PEOPLE BELIEVE(D) THAT ONE. NOW THERE’S NOT MUCH OF A FARM LEFT FOR ANY KIDS SMART OR OTHERWISE TO STAY ON.

Intelligent people don't work with their hands, they become doctors or lawyers or corporate executives or government officials.

AGAIN, VERY UNFORTUNATE THAT PEOPLE BELIEVE(D) THAT. REALIZING THAT COULD HAVE MADE A REAL DIFFERENCE TO ME EARLIER IN LIFE.

These all come from the same source that is and has been pushing homosexuality, abortion, and feminism. I had to do a lot of thinking, changing, and growing up when I put that all together. Not many are ready for that.

I ACKNOWLEDGE YOU AS BEING A MAN WHO WANTS TO UNDERSTAND HIS OWN REALITY AND HAS MADE PROGRESS BY DISBELIEVING SOME MAJOR LIES.

REGARDING HOMOSEXUALITY, MAYBE THIS IS JUST ‘TIME #6’ FOR YOU, BUT WHEN IT’S ‘TIME #7’ YOU’RE GOING TO REALIZE THAT THE BAD STUFF YOU BELIEVE ABOUT QUEERS IS PART OF THE FALSEHOOD THAT IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR EVERYBODY TO LET GO OF, EVEN THOUGH WHAT YOU SAY ABOUT THE MANIPULATION OF HOMOSEXUALITY FOR SOCIAL CONTROL DOES HAVE VALIDITY.

ellis

Justin_n_IL said...

I'm just going to get this out there. Long before I was so called converted I was disgusted at same sex relation. "To each their own"? Thatr way of life is a disgusting display of some of the worst most morbid disgusting lust known to mankind. Call me hompohobe I don't care. You political correctness makes me wanna puke anyway. I'll put in on a side note that any man who does wrong and see knows wrong in his doing is in the shame sad shape as the proud gay.

Go ahead and spew out the intolerance B.S. I don't care. Homosexuality is a disgusting lust of flesh. How freegin digusting. Makes me wanna vomit just thinking about such morbid behavior.

JUSTIN

Anonymous said...

so justin_n_il- looks like the conversion didn't work mate??
Tony

Justin_n_IL said...

Take all things Biblical from the equation and I am still perplexed.

m_astera said...

Ellis, you should maybe get a dictionary. A good one. And spend a little time with it instead of reciting whatever knee-jerk programming you project onto word meanings.

The dictionary I use is the Random House 2nd edition unabridged, copyright 1990. It's a full four inches thick and weighs around twenty pounds. I've seen it used as the go-to standard in good libraries.

Here is def. 2 for aberration: The act of deviating from the ordinary, usual, or normal type.

Now I suppose you wish to argue about deviating and what it means to you. That's your projection, not mine. Look it up under optics.

Here's syndrome, def. 2: a group of related or coincident things, events, actions etc. def. 4: a predictable characteristic pattern of behavior, action etc. that tends to occur under certain circumstances.

[snip]

When I wrote of homosexuality being environmental in prisons, did I say anything about conversion to homosexuality? No. It was also quite common, I have been led to believe, on long voyages in the days of sail. However, as the twig is bent, so grows the tree, or would you argue against that?

You appear to be arguing that all homosexuality is determined at birth. Well sorry bud, but there's no evidence for that. And if you don't think someone molested as a child might have the tendency to grow up to be a child molester, do your homework. Check out all forms of child abuse and see how they are perpetuated. Jeeze.

Despite my attempts to define my position as an educated and enlightened (def. 1) one, you can only see it through your filters. Listen up: I was raised in the same western society as you, and the programming was the same multicultural diversity bullshit that you experienced. Which means all races are equal, men and women are entirely equal in all ways, sexual behavior is all equal etc. ad nauseum. I graduated HS in 1969 and was very much a part of the phenomena of that time. Thirty five, even thirty years ago I believed that stuff. I was completely "open-minded" about women's lib, racial equality, religious and moral equivalency, and homosexuality. Jews, blacks, homosexuals, and women as eternal victims in need of rescue and support. Actually I wasn't open-minded at all, I was brainwashed. Yes, I've read John Taylor Gatto, including the Secret History you referred to.

My experience since then, plenty of it, has led me to a more knowledgeable position. I am not some ignorant bumpkin who grew up thinking queers were evil and God hated them, some redneck in need of six or seven repetitions from a queer apologist to awaken me from my cultural isolation. (look up apologist, OK?)

Get this straight: I used to think homosexuality was just fine and dandy. My life experience has proven that belief naive. The actions of the queers and dykes I have known and been around has convinced me that they are largely VERY FUCKED UP. Experience, y'know? LOTS of experience. Much more than I care to dwell upon, and much of it of such a quality that even blogger.com would probably censor it.

The promotion of homosexuality by those in control of mass information in this world is simply one more nail in the coffin of western civilization and the destruction of the family as the stable basis of society. You are the one with the defensive blind spot, not me.

Homosexuality is not inherently moral or immoral any more than heterosexuality is. When one steps over certain bounds, then either becomes immoral.

You can do what you like, as long as it doesn't mess with me and mine. Just don't do it in my face, and wash your hands afterwards. Don't expect me to applaud your animalistic urges or approve of you defining your identity by your sexual behavior. And understand for certain that I do believe there is such a thing as morality and that it has a beneficial purpose.

Anonymous said...

Far be it for me to appear controversial but you both need to use the dictionary one more time and look for the word 'bigot'.
True freedom comes with responsibilities. My news service tell me 4 in 5 people are mentally unbalanced. That's who we are!!
Tony

Anonymous said...

m_astera, i still haven't finished my reply to your original post on this topic. Here are short answers to your most recent (my remarks in CAPS).

ellis

------------------

Ellis, you should maybe get a dictionary. A good one. And spend a little time with it instead of reciting whatever knee-jerk programming you project onto word meanings.

The dictionary I use is the Random House 2nd edition unabridged, copyright 1990. It's a full four inches thick and weighs around twenty pounds. I've seen it used as the go-to standard in good libraries.

I ADMIT YOU HAVE A GREAT BIG DICTIONARY.

Here is def. 2 for aberration: The act of deviating from the ordinary, usual, or normal type.

PLEASE POST DEFINITION NO. 1 FOR 'ABERRATION', OUT OF THAT SAME DICTIONARY.

Now I suppose you wish to argue about deviating and what it means to you. That's your projection, not mine. Look it up under optics.

WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHETHER I'M 'PROJECTING' OR NOT AFTER YOU QUOTE THE FIRST DEFINITION FOR 'ABERRATION'.

Here's syndrome, def. 2: a group of related or coincident things, events, actions etc. def. 4: a predictable characteristic pattern of behavior, action etc. that tends to occur under certain circumstances.

PLEASE QUOTE DEFINITION NO. 1 FOR 'SYNDROME'.

[snip]

When I wrote of homosexuality being environmental in prisons, did I say anything about conversion to homosexuality? No.

WHEN I SAY 'HOMOSEXUALITY' I MEAN THE INNER PREDISPOSITION OF A MAN TO DESIRE AND ACHIEVE SEXUAL CONTACT WITH MEN . . . OR THE INNER PREDISPOSITION OF A WOMAN TO DESIRE AND ACHIEVE SEXUAL CONTACT WITH WOMEN.

THERE *IS* NO CONVERSION TO HOMOSEXUALITY IN PRISON, OR ANYWHERE ELSE. THE MEN WHO GO INTO PRISON HOMOSEXUAL COME OUT HOMOSEXUAL, AND THE MEN WHO GO IN HETEROSEXUAL COME OUT HETEROSEXUAL.

IF SOME HETEROSEXUAL MEN IN PRISON HAVE MALE-MALE SEX, WHETHER DESIRED OR UNDESIRED, THAT DOESN'T PROVE HOMOSEXUALITY ITSELF IS BAD IN ANY SENSE, AND IT DOESN'T PROVE THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS 'CATCHING.' IT ISN'T.

It was also quite common, I have been led to believe, on long voyages in the days of sail.

LET'S IMAGINE WE COULD INTERVIEW 1,000 OF THOSE SAILORS WHO HAD MALE-MALE SEX ON LONG VOYAGES IN THE DAYS OF SAIL. I AM SURE WE WOULD FIND OUT THAT SOME OF THEM WERE HOMOSEXUAL MEN, AND FOR THOSE, THE SEXUAL ACTIVITY ON SHIPBOARD WOULD HAVE BEEN IN LINE WITH THEIR INNER PRESIDSPOSITION. I BET WE WOULD ALSO FIND THAT SOME OF THEM WERE STRAIGHT MEN WHO WERE DOING THE BEST THEY COULD UNDER THE PREVAILING CONDITIONS OF SCARCITY (ZERO WOMEN ANYWHERE NEARBY, FOR MONTHS OR EVEN YEARS ON END).

I AM SURE WE WOULD ALSO FIND THAT THE SAILORS THAT STARTED THE VOYAGE GAY WERE GAY AT THE END OF IT, AND THAT THE SAILORS THAT STARTED THE VOYAGE STRAIGHT WERE STRAIGHT AT THE END OF IT, REGARDLESS OF ANY MALE-MALE SEX THAT THEY HAD OR DIDN'T HAVE EN ROUTE.

HERE AGAIN, THE FACT THAT SOME STRAIGHT SAILORS MAY HAVE HAD MALE-MALE SEX ON SHIPBOARD SAYS NOTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT THE VALUE OF HOMOSEXUALITY AS A HUMAN QUALITY, AND IT DOES NOT PROVE THAT HOMESEXUALITY IS 'CATCHING'.

However, as the twig is bent, so grows the tree, or would you argue against that?

IT'S A PROVERB THAT'S VALID IN CASES WHERE IT'S VALID, AND NOT OTHERWISE.

THE LITERAL MEANING IS TRUE (BEND A TREE BRANCH AND THE TREE WILL GROW INTO A DIFFERENT SHAPE).

SYMBOLICALLY, THIS SAYING IS VALID REGARDING HUMAN ETHICAL TRAINING . . . TRAIN A CHILD TO BE TRUTHFUL, AND THE CHILD WILL DEVELOP TRUTHFULNESS. OR, TRAIN A CHILD TO BE TRICKY, AND THE CHILD WILL DEVELOP TRICKINESS.

DOES HUMAN SEXUAL ORIENTATION RESPOND TO TRAINING?

IMO THERE IS NO AMOUNT OF TRAINING THAT WOULD TURN YOU, M_ASTERA, INTO A HOMOSEXUAL. EITHER YOU ARE ONE ALREADY, IN WHICH CASE THE TRAINING WOULD HAVE NO EFFECT, OR YOU ARE STRAIGHT, IN WHICH CASE YOU ARE IMMUNE TO BEING CHANGED IN THAT WAY.

I BELIEVE YOU COULD ALSO BE A MAN WITH ATTRACTION TO BOTH MEN AND WOMEN. THERE DO APPEAR TO BE A FEW PEOPLE LIKE THAT, AND I MET ONE ONCE WHO SAID HE DIDN'T BELIEVE THERE WERE ANY PEOPLE WHO WERE *ONLY* GAY. BECAUSE HIS INNER EXPERIENCE INCLUDED BOTH, AND THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT HE HAD NEVER DISCUSSED WITH ANYONE ELSE SO HE HAD BEEN UNABLE TO COMPARE HIS OWN EXPERIENCE WITH OTHER PEOPLE'S.

THERE ARE LOTS OF YOUNG MEN GETTING SENT TO 'EXODUS'-TYPE BIBLE CAMPS THAT SUPPOSEDLY CHANGE GAYS TO STRAIGHTS, AND TO DATE THERE HAS NOT BEEN ONE SUCCESSFUL GRADUATE, MEANING A PROGRAM PARTICIPANT WILLING TO BE INTERVIEWED, AND SAY THAT THEIR OWN INNER SEXUAL DESIRES HAD ACTUALLY SHIFTED FROM MEN TO WOMEN.

MOREOVER, SOCIETY AS A WHOLE IS AN ONGOING TRAINING CAMP WITH REWARDS (PHYSICAL SAFETY, CAREER ADVANCEMENT, APPROVAL FROM FAMILY, MARRIAGE, CHILDREN, ETC.) FOR HOMOSEXUALS WHO WOULD SWITCH TO STRAIGHT, AND PUNISHMENT (INSULTS, GETTING BEAT UP AT SCHOOL, GETTING KILLED, DISAPPROVAL AT WORK, DISAPPROVAL FROM FAMILY) FOR THOSE WHO DON'T SHIFT. BUT EVEN WITH ALL OF THAT RELENTLESS TRAINING, THERE AREN'T ANY EXAMPLES OF ANYONE WHO EVER SHIFTED OUT OF HOMOSEXUALITY, INTO ACTUALLY BEING STRAIGHT.

IF SEXUAL ORIENTATION WERE ENVIRONMENTALLY DETERMINED THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY HOMOSEXUALS.

BUT THERE ALWAYS ARE HOMOSEXUALS, GENERATION IN, GENERATION OUT.

You appear to be arguing that all homosexuality is determined at birth. Well sorry bud,

(1) DON'T 'BUD' ME, OR ELSE YOU WOULD BE A CONDESCENDING JERK.

(2) THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS 'DETERMINED AT BIRTH' IS NOT SOMETHING I AM ARGUING . . .

but there's no evidence for that.

. . . BUT THERE IS A HUGE AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS INNATE IN SOME SENSE. I AM EVIDENCE THAT POINTS IN THAT DIRECTION, AND SO IS EVERY OTHER HUMAN BEING WHO IS ACTUALLY HOMOSEXUAL. AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT THERE'S A PERCENTAGE OF THE HUMAN RACE WHOSE VERY EXISTENCE TENDS TO INDICATE THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS ONE OF THE NATURAL VARIETIES OF HUMAN BEING.

And if you don't think someone molested as a child might have the tendency to grow up to be a child molester, do your homework. Check out all forms of child abuse and see how they are perpetuated. Jeeze.

YES, SOMEONE MOLESTED AS A CHILD MIGHT HAVE THE TENDENCY TO GROW UP TO BE A CHILD MOLESTER.

WHAT DOES THAT PROVE ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY?

NOTHING, WHATSOEVER, BECAUSE SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN DOESN'T CAUSE HOMOSEXUALITY.

NOR IS IT TRUE THAT HOMOSEXUALS HAVE A GREATER TENDENCY TO BE CHILD MOLESTERS.

Despite my attempts to define my position as an educated and enlightened (def. 1) one

YOU CAN'T MAKE A SILK PURSE OUT OF A SOW'S EAR.

you can only see it through your filters. Listen up: I was raised in the same western society as you, and the programming was the same multicultural diversity bullshit that you experienced.

THE 'DIVERSITY' PC PROGRAMMING ONLY STARTED IN THE '60s. THE PROGRAMMING THAT SAYS HOMOSEXUALS ARE INHERENTLY EVIL IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, AND THAT GOES *WAY* BACK BEFORE THE 'G0s OF THE 20TH CENTURY.

Which means all races are equal, men and women are entirely equal in all ways, sexual behavior is all equal etc. ad nauseum. I graduated HS in 1969 and was very much a part of the phenomena of that time. Thirty five, even thirty years ago I believed that stuff. I was completely "open-minded" about women's lib, racial equality, religious and moral equivalency, and homosexuality. Jews, blacks, homosexuals, and women as eternal victims in need of rescue and support. Actually I wasn't open-minded at all, I was brainwashed. Yes, I've read John Taylor Gatto, including the Secret History you referred to.

My experience since then, plenty of it, has led me to a more knowledgeable position. I am not some ignorant bumpkin who grew up thinking queers were evil and God hated them, some redneck in need of six or seven repetitions from a queer apologist to awaken me from my cultural isolation. (look up apologist, OK?)

OK, BUT YOU LOOK UP 'AD NAUSEAM', IT HAS AN 'A' TOWARD THE END, NOT A 'U'.

Get this straight: I used to think homosexuality was just fine and dandy. My life experience has proven that belief naive. The actions of the queers and dykes I have known and been around has convinced me that they are largely VERY FUCKED UP.

*SPECIFICS, PLEASE.* IF THERE WAS A TIME WHEN YOU USED TO "THINK HOMOSEXUALITY WAS JUST FINE" AND LATER THE ACTIONS OF QUEERS AND DYKES PROVED THAT TO BE WRONG, PLEASE INDICATE WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED THERE.

Experience, y'know? LOTS of experience. Much more than I care to dwell upon, and much of it of such a quality that even blogger.com would probably censor it.

NOW WE COULD BE GETTING SOMEWHERE. M_ASTERA, DID YOU HAVE HOMOSEXUAL-TYPE EXPERIENCES OF SOME KIND?

(snip)

ellis

Anonymous said...

can i buy a mariwana tax stamp please?

Anonymous said...

i have been saying i would reply to m_astera's original posting on this thread, and here is my reply.

To m_astera . . .

For the record, after i posted my last posting previous to this, i waited 24 hours plus an additional overnight. During that time there was no reply from you to the questions at the end of my previous post. At that point (4-1/2 days ago) i posted the following at Smoking Mirrors . . .

****************************

m_astera, on Petri Dish you said the following at different places in your recent posts:

“I've had and still have plenty of "gay" friends and acquaintances, male and female. I've worked with them, been roommates with them, hung out at the bar with them, camped at the beach with them.”

“As I said, I have been around. I have seen a whole lot of the seamy side of the world, the really seamy side . . . .”

“For some reason the lesbians don't get into that sort of true degradation; the male queers do. I know this stuff, OK? I'm not coming from ignorance.”

“Get this straight: I used to think homosexuality was just fine and dandy. My life experience has proven that belief naive. The actions of the queers and dykes I have known and been around has convinced me that they are largely VERY FUCKED UP. Experience, y'know? LOTS of experience. Much more than I care to dwell upon, and much of it of such a quality that even blogger.com would probably censor it.”

So, in your past and/or your present you have had, and may still have, two groups of gay acquaintances . . .

There’s one set that you do quiet, vanilla stuff with,

and there is apparently another group (who are specifically, in your words, “male queers”) with whom you have done in the past and perhaps still do things that are by your description: “Seamy, really seamy, true degradation, VERY FUCKED UP [your caps], and of a such a quality that even blogger.com would probably censor it.”

How did you, or how do you, have those experiences with male queers without being homosexual (or possibly bisexual) yourself?

ellis

****************************

As i said, that post at Smoking Mirrors was 4-1/2 days ago. Since then i believe you have not posted anything there or here. So it looks like you have abandoned the conversation.

i don't know if you will actually be reading this.

i believe you are a homosexual man or possibly a bisexual man, and i believe you are afraid of that characteristic in your own makeup.

That was my situation from when i was about 5 years old till i was 26, and i remember how painful that was. i tried to hide the fact of my attraction to men even from myself and of course from other people, and i do remember how awful that felt. Also, in my school period i remember two times when i (once) ridiculed and (the other time) ostracized someone i knew to be homosexual, to protect myself from any suspicion.

The first time was in 7th or 8th grade Spanish class when i drew a picture of an effeminate guy named Jerry (who was there in the room) "as" a fag, with limp wrists etc., and held the drawing up, and the other students laughed at Jerry.

The other time was in college when i voted to reject someone's membership in a choral group because he had asked to join as an explicitly gay person. Very brave of that guy, especially for 1970.

In "1984" when Winston ends up in Room 101 he avoids having his face eaten by rats, by saying "Do it to Julia," and i don't remember in the novel how Winston actually feels about his betrayal of her . . . in my own case i do remember how GOOD it felt to me at the time, in both of those situations, to be channeling right onto someone else, the ridicule and the rejection that i believed i had coming to me.

So how would i recognize if someone was covering up their own fear of being queer, by verbally attacking queers???

If i recognize it, it's because i did the very same thing, for that very same reason.

To whatever degree you are currently 'in a pickle' with this whole issue i wish you 100% success in quickly going right through it and out the other side.

From your posts i can see what a valuable man you are. i did read what you asked for when you were talking to the flor de reina plants. If i may say so that's an awesome request and i bet it's going to happen just the way you asked for it.

Also your original post had a golden nugget of good information, where you said . . .

"AIDS isn't and never was an infectious disease and has nothing to do with the so-called HIV virus."

Reserving agreement with some other ideas in that same paragraph, that statement is saying something that everyone would benefit by knowing. On that topic you may already know of this website . . .

http://www.virusmyth.com

ellis

Anonymous said...

And to tony, who asked . . .

"Ellis you must admit you have waved your flag here (in Les’ blogs) a little mate- why is that??"

tony, thank you for asking me that. i did 'wave my flag' and i believe that in the beginning i did that in a way that was sort of flirty, emotional, and joky, and i apologize to everyone for coming on in that 'pretend' way because it was dishonest.

My real message is . . .

i'm here, i'm queer, get used to it.

i'm handling part A and part B, and part C is up to you.

ellis

m_astera said...

Ellis:

See if you recall this:

"When I look at the world and all of the injustices that need to be adjusted, the lack of ‘One hundred percent authentic!’, ‘accept no substitutes!’ universal gay marriage isn’t what immediately comes to mind.

Along with Zionism, I consider political correctness to be one of the most pernicious viruses on the planet. I shouldn’t have to point out that the places where political correctness most flourished was in revolutionary France, in Red China and among the Khmer Rouge.

Political Correctness is cultural fascism. Fascism doesn’t have just one set of clothes. It is as likely to show up in a school room as it is at a family dinner table.

I’m guessing that gay people in general have got it a great deal better than the Native Americans do. You hear all kinds of arguments about benefits and tax situations where gays are discriminated against because they don’t have the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples have. The bottom line is that that is bullshit… gays like most of the rest of the well-funded political correctness movements are more than equal."


That was most of the lead paragraphs of Les's piece, which in case you didn't get it was called

"Somewhere over the Rainbow Lies the Land of the Khmer Rouge."

Perhaps you can figure our which "rainbow" is being referred to?

The essay was followed by a few somewhat interesting posts, and then we came to this:

"i'm a man, and i fall in love with men, and i think about men when i masturbate"

Well arent' you fuckin' special? And don't we all feel privileged to hear about your masturbation?

What you don't seem to get is that your "in your face" and "I'm Special" attitude is saying "I can act anyway I want and you have to take it because I'm protected by political correctness". The exact shit that the original rant was about.

So what you accomplished was convicting yourself. YOU are the poster child for the problem, but you are too dense and narcissistic to even see that.

As for your answers to my posts, they are so juvenile that I have given up reading them. I don't know what generic rednecks you are addressing but it isn't me, and I'm not at all impressed with freshman-depth Freudian bullshit. I have no time to waste on naive shallowness. YOU are the very problem the original essay was addressing, get it? The world is going to hell, but you are more concerned about whether or not everyone approves of your sex life. Pitiful comes to mind, but your self-serving mud-puddle precludes pity.

Feel free to continue your monologue aimed at some imaginary misinformed idiots but don't bother addressing me. I don't suffer fools gladly.

m_astera said...

Well ellis, let's see if this thread is still active. I missed reading your last post before I wrote my last one. I did find your last one a little more reasonable. You are still projecting though, and still refusing to see what I am saying.

If it takes me four or five days to reply, that's a combination of being very busy and tired of wasting my words. I started posting here recently, naively assuming that many if not most of the regular posters here were up to speed on the men behind the curtain pulling the levers. I know better now, and see that the same sacred cows are lying in the middle of the road here.

No, I'm not gay and never have been even slightly attracted to men sexually, it goes under the category of "yuck" for me. Nonetheless I don't hate or fear or despise someone who is homosexual, nor have I ever given someone a hard time about their sexual preferences.

What I was addressing, for the last time, was sexual obsession and perversion. Having sex with one's own sex is neither of the above, but taken to extremes can become the above, regardless of orientation. Get it yet? That is when it becomes dangerous, a disease vector, and harmful to society.

If you are aware of the AIDS virus myth, why aren't you aware that the pro-homosexual agenda is funded by the Rockefellers? Did you miss the references to the Fabian society? Did you read John Taylor Gatto and not get the agenda to destroy the family so the state can take its place? I find it hard to believe that one could follow world events enough to get what Les is often writing about without being aware of the overall NWO agenda and its funding and promotion of radical feminism, homosexuality, sexual "liberation" and Marxism, but perhaps even Les isn't aware of that. We live and learn.

As for how I have had so many gay friends and been around the scene so much, some years back I ended up in a new city where my only past acquaintance was gay, and he was kind enough to let me stay at his house until I got my act together and my own place. During that period I was exposed to much more than I wished to be and lost any illusion that the "relationships" that most urban queers have bear much resemblance to heterosexual relationships. Perhaps you live in a small town in the NWT and don't know what I'm talking about?

I've also read a lot and talked to many people. If you have read Inventing the AIDS Virus by Duesberg you know he goes into some detail about homosexual promiscuity and drug abuse. There's plenty more documentation out there. It isn't pretty.

No I don't hate homosexuals and never have. No I'm not secretly in denial of my own tendencies that way. The attraction doesn't exist.

Now maybe you could go back and read what I actually wrote and take it at face value, as I'm tired of repeating myself.

Anonymous said...

m_astera, you said . . .

"As for how I have had so many gay friends and been around the scene so much, some years back I ended up in a new city where my only past acquaintance was gay, and he was kind enough to let me stay at his house until I got my act together and my own place. During that period I was exposed to much more than I wished to be and lost any illusion that the 'relationships' that most urban queers have bear much resemblance to heterosexual relationships."

So, somehow, without any interest on your part, you, as a totally passive and unwilling participant, "were exposed to much more than you wished to be" of some unnamed experience(s) while living in the house of that ONE (1) gay person, and those experiences (whatever they were) now have you ranting on the internet, in post after post -- "some years" later -- to the effect that "queers and dykes . . . are largely VERY FUCKED UP."

(That's your wording from an earlier post.)

i find that scenario to be non-believable, and the part that would have it make sense, and would have it BE believable, is the part you're leaving out . . . whatever that is (i really can't guess).

But that story, as it stands, simply doesn't add up.

So here are some questions which i am asking because i am curious about you.

How old were you at that time you were a houseguest with the gay gentleman?

How old was he?

What city was it?

If that's classified info then was it North American, European, South American, or Other?

How did you know the man who let you stay at his house?

How long did you live there?

Did you have your own room, or were you sleeping on the couch, or what?

While you were there did you try having sex with men, either with him or with someone else?

What do you mean by saying that you "were exposed to" something?

In other words, did your host force you to watch what he was doing with other people?

Did he make you go with him to places where sexual things were happening?

Did he pressure you into doing sexual or sex-related things with him?

What was the unnamed 'something' or 'somethings' that you "were exposed to"?

ellis

Visible said...

Ellis;

email me at lesvisible@gmail.com

m_astera said...

Ellis, I am bored with the conversation and with your prurient interest. My personal life is none of your business, and your fixation on sex is not of interest to me either. The only things of real interest to me are concepts and ideas, not people and things.

Know this: I do not lie or obfuscate, unless it is to liars and thieves (such as government agents) who would do me harm if I told the truth. I don't think you are a liar or thief, nor do you mean me harm, so you can take it as fact that I'm not lying.

My entire focus is on getting this planet and some remnant of worthwhile humans through the coming chaos. That is where my time, energy, money, and effort go. If you doubt this I suggest you read my web site.

Once more, the condensed version: I fail to see what benefit accrues to society from persons whose lives are focused on physical pleasure seeking, drug abuse, and random, irresponsible, promiscuous sex. This applies regardless of the participants' "orientation". My experience has shown those behaviors to be detrimental to the psyche, spirit, and body of those involved and to society in general in a way similar to that of unbridled greed and materialism.

If you would like to discuss ideas and concepts, such as why the Rockefellers et al have been funding the promotion of this "lifestyle" along with their other attacks on traditional societal mores, I might be interested, should you have an original take on it.

And thanks for the heads-up on ad nauseam.

Anonymous said...

Ellis, I am bored with the conversation

I'VE BEEN BORED WITH THIS CONVERSATION FOR OVER A WEEK ALREADY.

and with your prurient interest.

THIS IS QUITE NASTY OF YOU, M_ASTERA, TO IMPLY THAT MY CURIOSITY ABOUT YOUR SITUATION MEANS THAT I MUST HAVE A 'PRURIENT INTEREST' IN WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU EARLIER IN YOUR LIFE.

My personal life is none of your business,

THAT GAMBIT RIGHT THERE IS A DIRTY POWER PLAY.

YOU HAVE REPEATED OVER AND OVER THAT HOMOSEXUALS AS A GROUP ARE PERVERTED, LOSERS, VERY-FUCKED-UP, ETC., AND YOU HAVE IMPLIED YOU THINK THOSE SAME THINGS ABOUT ME BECAUSE I AM HOMOSEXUAL, AND YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY SUGGESTED THAT YOU ARE COMPELLED TO HOLD THOSE BELIEFS, BECAUSE OF CERTAIN PAST EXPERIENCES OF YOUR OWN . . . WHICH YOU THEN REFUSE TO DISCUSS BECAUSE YOUR PERSONAL LIFE IS ‘NONE OF MY BUSINESS’!

HERE’S A RESTATEMENT OF YOUR POSITION:

“YOU ARE PROBABLY A DISGUSTING PERVERT, AND MY REASONS FOR BELIEVING THAT AND FOR SAYING IT REPEATEDLY, IN FRONT OF THE OTHER PEOPLE READING THIS THREAD, ARE NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, BECAUSE THEY INVOLVE MY PERSONAL LIFE.”

ONCE KOKO THE GORILLA HAD LEARNED HER FIRST FEW HUNDRED SIGNS IN AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE . . .

http://www.koko.org/world/signlanguage.html

. . . SHE REPORTEDLY WOULD SOMETIMES SIGN, 'SHITTY MONKEY, SHITTY MONKEY,' AS A COMMENT ON ANOTHER GORILLA.

WHEN YOU 'CONVERSE' THE WAY YOU HAVE BEEN DOING, I HAVE SOMETIMES THOUGHT, WOW! SHITTY MONKEY, SHITTY MONKEY!

THIS IS ONE OF THOSE TIMES, M_ASTERA.

and your fixation on sex is not of interest to me either.

THAT STATEMENT IS PROVEN FALSE, BY YOUR OWN EARLIER POSTS.

AS YOU HAVE DEMONSTRATED THROUGHOUT YOUR EALIER POSTS ON THIS THREAD, THE "FIXATION ON SEX" THAT YOU IMAGINE 'ALL HOMOSEXUALS' AS HAVING **IS PRECISELY** ONE OF THE IDEAS THAT YOU **DO** FOCUS ON, WITH **OBSESSIVE INTEREST**, WHENEVER YOU THINK OF HOMOSEXUALS.

The only things of real interest to me are concepts and ideas, not people and things.

I USED TO BE MORE LIKE THAT THAN I AM NOW. NOW I'M LESS LIKE THAT THAT I WAS, AND I'M HAPPIER THAN I USED TO BE BECAUSE I'M AT LEAST A LITTLE TINY BIT INTERESTED IN OTHER PEOPLE, SUCH AS YOU FOR INSTANCE.

Know this:

UH-OH, I BETTER PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO WHAT M_ASTERA IS NOW COMMANDING ME TO KNOW . . .

I do not lie or obfuscate, unless it is to liars and thieves (such as government agents) who would do me harm if I told the truth. I don't think you are a liar or thief, nor do you mean me harm, so you can take it as fact that I'm not lying.

WHAT THIS MEANS IS:

“I HAVE SAID OVER AND OVER THAT ‘PEOPLE LIKE YOU’ ARE PERVERTS, LOSERS, AND TOTALLY FUCKED UP. AND I *ALWAYS* TELL THE TRUTH EXCEPT TO LIARS, THIEVES, AND PEOPLE WHO MEAN ME HARM. AND I DON’T THINK YOU ARE A LIAR OR A THIEF, NOR DO I THINK YOU MEAN ME HARM. THEREFORE IT FOLLOWS, WITH SYLLOGISTIC PRECISION, THAT YOU MUST TAKE IT AS FACT THAT I AM TELLING THE TRUTH WHEN I SAY THAT PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE PERVERTS, LOSERS, AND TOTALLY FUCKED UP.”

ANOTHER PERFECT OPPORTUNITY FOR QUOTING KOKO SAYING, “SHITTY MONKEY, SHITTY MONKEY.”

My entire focus is on getting this planet and some remnant of worthwhile humans through the coming chaos.

BUT ONLY THE 'WORTHWHILE' ONES. FROM WHAT YOU'VE SAID, THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE ANY HOMOSEXUALS. BE CAREFUL, SOME OF US MIGHT SNEAK ONTO THE ARK WITH YOU AND YOUR CHOSEN ONES.

That is where my time, energy, money, and effort go. If you doubt this I suggest you read my web site.

IF I COULD FIND IT.

Once more, the condensed version: I fail to see what benefit accrues to society from persons whose lives are focused on physical pleasure seeking, drug abuse, and random, irresponsible, promiscuous sex. This applies regardless of the participants' "orientation". My experience has shown those behaviors to be detrimental to the psyche, spirit, and body of those involved and to society in general in a way similar to that of unbridled greed and materialism.

PLEASE ALLOW ME TO TRANSLATE THAT, AS FOLLOWS:

"MY BELIEFS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALS ARE ACTUALLY TOTALLY INDEFENSIBLE, AND INSTEAD OF ADMITTING THAT, I AM NOW FUZZING UP MY POSITION BY SAYING: ALL OF THE BAD STUFF THAT I REPEATED OVER AND OVER IN EARLIER POSTS, ABOUT QUEERS, ACTUALLY APPLIES TO *EVERYONE* WHO ‘FOCUSES ON PHYSICAL PLEASURE,’ ABUSES DRUGS, OR ENGAGES IN RANDOM, IRRESPONSIBLE, PROMISCUOUS SEX. BUT I’M SAYING THAT WITH MY FINGERS CROSSED BECAUSE -- NUDGE, NUDGE, WINK, WINK -- **EVERYONE KNOWS** THAT IT'S THE HOMOSEXUALS WHO ARE THE MAIN PROMISCUOUS DRUG ABUSERS."

If you would like to discuss ideas and concepts, such as why the Rockefellers et al have been funding the promotion of this "lifestyle" along with their other attacks on traditional societal mores, I might be interested, should you have an original take on it.

SOUNDS LIKE A YAWN, BUT AT LEAST WE WOULDN’T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT ACCIDENTALLY BLURTING OUT SOMETHING TRUE ABOUT OUR PERSONAL LIVES.

And thanks for the heads-up on ad nauseam.

YOU’RE WELCOME. BTW, THAT WAS IN THE CONTEXT WHERE I WAS ASKING YOU TO QUOTE THE *FIRST* DEFINITIONS OF ‘ABERRATION’ AND ‘SYNDROME’ FROM YOUR BIG RANDOM HOUSE DICTIONARY, INSTEAD OF THE SECOND OR FOURTH DEFINITIONS, AND YOU NEVER DID THAT.

ellis

m_astera said...

Ellis, I stand in awe of your ability to read minds and know the true inner meaning of whatever I write as opposed to what I actually write. You even somehow mysteriously know which of several definitions apply to the words I use. /sarcasm

Did you perchance read Les's essay on package deals, which package we signed up for? Are you able to see which package you signed up for?

Some few of us didn't get the package deal, or perhaps we got some undefined package that isn't readily known. Assuming that I can be even remotely typecast would be erroneous, as many have learned if they've been around me long enough.

Here's Joe Bageant with a version of my main point in this discussion:

"America has a long record of stifling dissent exactly when dissent is most needed. Democracy American style means we get free speech for trivial matters but not for life-and-death issues. When an election is stolen, the very party from whom it was stolen refuses to protest the theft because well, "Nobody likes sour grapes, do they? thereby assuring future electoral thefts. When America supplies Israel with cluster bombs to kill Palestinian children and grandmothers, you don't see rallies against Israel or American arms cartels. You see yet another exercise of free speech on behalf those things the politicians and corporations could care less about, and thus grant us permission to "dissent" upon. Issues such as gender and identity, or just about anything related to sexual freedom: "Go ahead, parade and rant about your own penises and vulvas. Just don't challenge the banks, the war machine or the fraudulent democratic process by which we manage the people. Remember, fucking with these things is called terrorism. So stick to your own narrow "issues" like sexual freedom and nobody will get hurt. Got it punk?"

source


How many times in how many posts did I make the point that I was using gay rights activism as an egregious example, but that it applied to any and all who are sexually obsessed? Numerous times, you just have your blinders on.

My site may be found by clicking on my name at the top of this comment, which takes one to my profile page, where one will find the link to my home page.

m_astera said...

FYI, rather than having to use caps to separate your responses from my comments, here's another way (unless you particularly like all caps):

type the left carat "<" (without the quote marks), then type in i for italic, or b for bold, then type the right-pointing carat. Put that in before. At the end of what you want to separate, use the left carat again "<", then the forward slash / (which means "end")and the "i" or "b" or both and then the right carat again.

Anonymous said...

I assume people who are spiritually inclined at least approach a point of realization that "you are not the body."
All this I am homo, I am straight, I am Russian, I am Jew, I am Hindu, is the source of that karma you see when you look in the mirror.
The goal is to "unrealize" all these bodily identifications, not revel in them.
Did I assume wrong? Are we not spiritual souls covered by the maya of material energy?

Visible said...

You did not assume wrong. You are spot on. The actual definition of apocalypse is very revealing in this regard.

m_astera said...

I think the phrase "I am a spiritual being having a human experience" says it well.

Nonetheless, I think there is far more to the human experience than just coming to the realization that it is maya. The evolution of ongoing creation in the time-space universes has purpose and meaning beyond just being something to escape from, much as any good school has a purpose beyond graduating and getting a diploma.

And still it is more; it is the arena, the grand stage of creation.